Short answer. Yes. Ownership carries a limit written into the Civil Code itself: the owner of a thing cannot use it in a manner that injures the rights of a third person. Being on your own land is not an answer to a complaint about what your use of it does next door.
What the law says
The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person.
Civil Code, Article 431 — Owner May Not Injure Others (Sic Utere Tuo). Read the full provision →
The limit is built into ownership
The rule is short enough to quote whole: the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person. Notice that it is not framed as an exception to ownership grudgingly allowed by some other statute. It sits among the provisions that define what owning a thing means, which is why "it is my property" cannot be the end of the argument. The right to use is real, but it was never a right to use in any way at all, and the boundary is where somebody else's rights begin.
Injury to rights, not merely annoyance
The provision speaks of injuring the rights of a third person, and that word does most of the filtering. Neighbours irritate each other constantly without anyone's rights being touched — a view spoiled, a business that draws traffic, a renovation that is noisy for a month. What the rule reaches is a use that interferes with what the neighbour is entitled to: the enjoyment and safety of his own property, his health, his access. The test is not whether he minds, and not whether you meant harm, but whether your use collides with something the law protects for him.
What relief usually looks like
Because the limit is on the use, the natural remedy is aimed at the use — stopping or modifying it — and damages follow for loss already caused. That has a practical consequence people miss. A complaint of this kind is rarely satisfied by paying and carrying on, so a neighbour with a genuine grievance is not merely asking for money and will not usually go away when it is offered. Equally, the person complaining has to identify what is actually being interfered with, because a demand to stop a lawful activity that harms nothing protected will not succeed.
What settles a dispute like this
Evidence of the interference itself is what decides these matters: dated records of when the problem occurs and for how long, photographs or readings taken at the time, any damage to the neighbouring structure, and the written exchanges between the two households. The relative position of the two properties usually matters as well, so the survey plan and the titles are worth having. Raise the complaint in writing early — the sequence of who was told what, and when, tends to be the difference between a use that can be adjusted and one that has hardened into a lawsuit.